1962 Cadillac Sixty vs. 2004 Ford Ecosport
To start off, 2004 Ford Ecosport is newer by 42 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1962 Cadillac Sixty. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1962 Cadillac Sixty would be higher. At 6,388 cc (8 cylinders), 1962 Cadillac Sixty is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 1962 Cadillac Sixty is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1962 Cadillac Sixty. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Ford Ecosport, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
| 1962 Cadillac Sixty | 2004 Ford Ecosport | |
| Make | Cadillac | Ford |
| Model | Sixty | Ecosport |
| Year Released | 1962 | 2004 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6388 cc | 1400 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 67 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5650 mm | 4228 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1679 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3300 mm | 2490 mm |
